I decided to re-post a former msg because
it's stuff is useful in this discussion of Tapered
Harmony's basics.
"kenneth collins" <kenneth.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:DCE1e.468656$w62.462503 at bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| [...]
If you were nearby, I'd come
and show you, but perhaps you
can come up with a copy of the
Tuesday, 2005-02-08, issue of
the =New York Times=. There's
more "New" in it.
There's a short, but very-significant
article on p D1 if the =NYT= issue.
"Holy Whistling Helium! Another
Quantum Trick", by K. Chang.
But, rather than being "quantum"-
anything, of the sort with respect
to which Dr. Einstein refused to
accept -- "God doesn't play at
dice" -- the phenomenon that's re-
ported is gloriously, completely-
unitarily-Determined, forming a
set of coupled macroscopic 'at-
oms'.
The article describes the formation
of "vortices" in helium-4 that's sup-
er cooled to -459 degrees F.
Quoting from the article: "Pushing
helium 4 through a tiny hole sped
up the flow, creating a vortex. 'It
will eventually crash into the walls,"
Dr. Packard said. 'Then the energy
gets turned into just heat."
The cycle repeats, producing [quot-
ing from the article] "pressure waves
that can be picked up by a sensitive
microphone".
[Such "vortices" are a standard feature
in "superconductivity", and their oc-
currence in "superfluidity" is 'just' more
of the same stuff [which I'll work-
through below].
The H-4 is fed, under pressure,
into a grid of 4,225 "holes" [dim-
ensions implied to be "tiny"].
Quoting from the article: "The ex-
pectation was that 4,225 random
noises would mostly cancel one
another.
Instead, when Mr. Hoskinson donned
headphones and listened to the helium,
he heard a pure, clear tone, like a pen-
nywhistle (online at [
http://www.nytimes.com/science/
], with the pitch changing with the pres-
sure applied to the superfluid.
Dr. Packard said the vortexes at the
different holes appeared to interact
with one another, causing them to form
and crash all at the same pace.
The phenomenon is not just a silly
quantum trick [...]"
And how!!!
It's not 'quantum' at all. Rather, it's an
experimental verification of of the fund-
amental principles of Tapered Harmony
which I've discussed, reiteratively, in long-
former posts here in bionet.neuroscience.
Viewed from Tapered Harmony's per-
spective, the "vortices" constitute macro-
scopic 'atoms'. Their "synchronization"
derives, Deterministically, in the fact [in
Tapered Harmony] that, what the energy-
expenditure that's goes into reducing
their temp to "super-cooled" ranges does
is analogous to imposing delimited free-
dom-to-move upon the energy-surround
that was discussed in my long-former
"SSW<->UES harmonics" posts. Norm-
ally, the energy-surround [the "UES"] ex-
hibits great freedom-to-move, and it does
exactly that, which led Physicists to view
it as "not having any existence" -- because
it's freedom-to-move is, normally, so great
that, unless one uses special means, it seems
that one 'cannot' detect it.
The stuff reported on in the little =NYT=
article "sees-through" that difficulty, however.
The "synchronization" of the "vortices" de-
rives, Deterministically, in the fact [in TH]
that the freedom-to-move of the UES local
to the vortices becomes reduced -- so that
it is everywhere-"connected" -- be-cause
the super cooling acts to move the local
UES toward the energy-matter phase trans-
ition, sufficiently, to render the "solution"
everywhere "connected" -- [I really should
go over the SSW<->UES harmonics, but
I'm not going to :-] -- What happens is that,
when one vortex moves, that "motion" trans-
mits right through the SSW<->UES harmon-
ics that comprise the stuff through which the
grid of holes exists, varying their local UES-
surrounds, which continues to transmit to
the other vortices -- displacing the UES-
surround anywhere results in that displace-
ment being "replicated" everywhere within
the super cooled "system" [More information
can be gathered from much-larger vortex-
"arrays", in particular, with respect to trans-
mission-velocity, especially if the inter-vortex
distance is varied in successive trials. Here,
the hypothesized "additional data" will cor-
relate to vortex size which, itself, is variable
with TempK.]
This "collective"-displacement happens be-
cause, at super-cooled temps, the vortices
exist as macroscopic 'atoms' that're relatively-
tightly-"bound" to their super-cooled UES
surround, so, when there's a displacement in
one direction, the UES-surround of that vortex
goes with the vortex, which creates UES-pres-
sure variations that "transmit" in =that= direc-
tion, which, simultaneously, creates UES-pres-
sure "voids" into which the UES surrounding
the other vortices flows, resulting in "synchron-
ized displacement of these other vortices.
The article didn't describe the Geometry of
the "tiny holes". Presumably, they are circular.
If the stuff I've discussed above is Correct,
then, if the Geometry of the "holes" is system-
atically-varied, it will be possible to, thereby,
tune the "resonances" of the vortices, and,
therefore the "tone" of the "whistle" that they
collectively "construct", and to render it "noisy",
as the Researchers initially expected it to be.
[It should be possible to get them to cancel
completely.]
Anyway, I can do the Calculations, inherent,
in the ol' noggin' lab be-cause I had to Solve
all of the correlated Problems involved ['dec-
ades' ago] when I was working-out the 3-D
energydynamics that occur within, and Enable,
nervous system ["brain"] function, and they're
all just "second-nature" to me. [I just "See"
them.]
"Brains" do their stuff at room temperature,
but the "Coulomb forces" that constitute the
3-D energydynamics are analogous to what
I've discussed above [which is why I can Pre-
dict with respect to the Geometry of the "holes"
in the experimental design that's briefly discuss-
ed in the =NYT= article. Nervous systems do
an exact analogue of the "hole"-Geometry-var-
iation that I discussed above, always in ways
that conform to TD E/I-minimized activation
'states'. That is, in nervous systems, "noise" is
always 'moved away from' [although it does
occur 'instantaneously in stuff like the "startle
response", and is approached to the degree
that the =fundamental "point or randomness"
[AoK, Ap4] is 'approached'].
I understand that my discussion, above, will
probably communicate to only a few folks,
which is why I'm always asking to meet with
folks in-person.
In-person, the calculations can be diagrammed
as energy-flow diagrams, which enables folks
to just See it all.
"Talking it into existence" is hard-to-do.
But the Maths is all right-there. I've been doing
it "in-words" in folks' midst, all along.
Anyway, why the little =NYT= article gives
me Joy is because, within it, the "UES" is
rendered flat-out Visible. [I've seen it in a
g'zillion other ways, but am hoping that my dis-
cussion, above, will enable other folks to
See it too.]
k. p. collins